Method and composition for enhancing milk production

ABSTRACT

The present invention concerns a method of enhancing milk production by a ruminant that includes providing a feed that contains sorbitol and at least one additional feed component, and orally feeding the feed to the ruminant, the ruminant ingesting about 100 grams, or less, of sorbitol per day.

CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS

This application is a continuation of U.S. application Ser. No.13/863,125 filed on Apr. 15, 2013, issued as U.S. Pat. No. 8,980,306 onMar. 17, 2015, which is a continuation of U.S. application Ser. No.11/256,495 filed on Oct. 21, 2005, issued as U.S. Pat. No. 8,440,218 onMay 14, 2013, which is a continuation of U.S. application Ser. No.10/147,551 filed on May 17, 2002, issued as U.S. Pat. No. 7,037,518 onMay 2, 2006, which is a continuation of U.S. application Ser. No.09/338,314 filed on Jun. 22, 1999, issued as U.S. Pat. No. 6,440,447 onAug. 27, 2002, the contents of all of which are herein incorporated byreference in its entirety.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

The present invention generally relates to a method and composition forenhancing milk production. More particularly, the present inventionrelates to a method and composition for enhancing milk production byruminants.

Milk producers are continually looking for new compositions and methodsthat permit a selective increase in the amount of milk produced byruminants. A number of advances have been made over the years inincrementally increasing milk production by ruminants. For example,various changes in the ingredient composition of ruminant feed have beenmade in attempts to coax ruminants into increasing the amount of feedintake, increasing the amount of water intake, and/or adding particularfeed components that are thought to aid in increasing the amount of milkproduced by ruminants.

Additionally, some efforts have focused upon modifying the feed to causedigestion of particular feed components in particular stomach componentsof the ruminant. For example, techniques exist for making certain feedcomponents or feed additives, such as certain proteins and amino acids,rumen-inert to prevent these components from being digested in the rumenand to consequently permit digestion of these select components instomach components other than the rumen, such as in the abomasum.Complicating matters further, care must be taken to assure that theparticular feeding change does not cause health problems in theruminant, such as ruminal keratosis, abomasal displacement, orlaminitis.

Though the various ruminant feeding techniques that have been proposedand/or practiced over the years have enhanced the overall knowledge basewith respect to ruminant feeding, these techniques have not adequatelyaddressed the problem of how to most economically, efficiently, andeffectively increase the amount of milk produced by ruminants.Therefore, a need still exists for an improved method and compositionfor feeding ruminants that enhances the amount of milk produced by theruminants.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

The present invention includes a method of enhancing milk production bya ruminant. The method includes providing a feed that contains sorbitoland at least one additional feed component, and orally feeding the feedto the ruminant, the ruminant ingesting about 100 grams, or less, ofsorbitol per day. The present invention further includes a feed materialand a method of feeding a ruminant.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

FIG. 1 is a graph depicting differences in dry matter intake inlactating cows that are fed a control ration versus lactating cows thatare fed the control ration, along with sorbitol, in accordance with thepresent invention.

FIG. 2 is a graph depicting differences in the amount of milk productionby lactating cows fed the control ration versus lactating cows fed thecontrol ration, along with sorbitol, in accordance with the presentinvention.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION

The present invention includes both a method and a feed composition forenhancing the amount of milk production by ruminants. The method of thepresent invention entails feeding ruminants the feed composition thatincludes at least one sugar alcohol, where the feed composition isorally fed to the ruminant.

It has been discovered that if a sugar alcohol is orally fed to aruminant, even at low rates, such as about one hundred grams of sorbitolper day per ruminant, the amount of milk produced by the ruminant issurprisingly increased. This is a surprising result, since it hastraditionally been thought that orally ingested sugar alcohol would besubstantially, if not predominantly, digested in the rumen of theruminants and would consequently cause negligible, if any, increases inmilk production by the ruminants. However, in accordance with thepresent invention, it has been discovered that as much as at least about50 weight percent of the sugar alcohol, based upon the total amount ofsugar alcohol orally fed to the ruminant, passes through the rumen ofthe ruminant and into the abomasum of the ruminant within about six toabout eight hours after the sugar alcohol enters the rumen, when usingsorbitol as the sugar alcohol. It is believed that the makeup of thefeed composition administered in accordance with the present inventionhelps to minimize the residence time, and consequently digestion, of thesorbitol in the rumen. Therefore, the fibrous content of the feedcomposition is preferably reduced, relative to the fibrous content ofexisting traditional ruminant feeds, to aid in minimizing the residencetime of sorbitol in the rumen.

As used herein, the term “ruminant” means an even-toed hoofed animalwhich has a complex 3- or 4-chamber stomach and which typically rechewswhat it has previously swallowed. Some non-exhaustive examples ofruminants include cattle, sheep, goats, oxen, musk ox, llamas, alpacas,guanicos, deer, bison, antelopes, camels, and giraffes. The digestivetract of a cow, one example of the ruminant that may be fed inaccordance with the present invention, includes a stomach that has foursections: a rumen, a reticulum, an omasum, and an abomasum. The foursections of the stomach may affect digestion of a component passingthrough the stomach because each section of the stomach serves adifferent function in the digestive process. In the rumen, food is mixedwith saliva and then churned in a coordinated motion. The food mixtureundergoes some fermentation and bacterial digestion in the rumen. Themixture of food and saliva then passes to the reticulum where themixture is formed into a cud that can be regurgitated. After thoroughchewing of the regurgitated cud, the cud is reswallowed and then passesfrom the rumen through the reticulum and into the omasum, if particlesize restrictions are satisfied. While in the omasum, the mixture isadditionally mixed to maintain it in a homogenous state and to removeexcess fluid. Then, the homogenous mixture is passed from the omasum tothe abomasum, where gastric digestion occurs.

As explained above, the feed composition administered in accordance withthe present invention includes, or is orally fed to the ruminants alongwith, at least one sugar alcohol. As used herein, sugar alcohol isdefined as a polyhydric alcohol formed by the reduction of the carbonylgroup of a sugar to a hydroxyl group, with no more than one hydroxygroup being attached to any one carbon atom of the sugar alcohol. Thesugar alcohol that is included as part of the feed composition or thatis added to the feed composition in accordance with the presentinvention may take any form. For example, the sugar alcohol may becrystalline, in the form of a syrup, or in the form of an aqueousmixture of water and crystalline sugar alcohol and/or water and sugaralcohol syrup.

One preferred example of the sugar alcohol that may be used inpracticing the present invention is sorbitol. Some other examples ofsugar alcohols that may be used in practicing the present inventioninclude adonitol; allitol; altritol (D-altritol, L-altritol, and D,Laltritol); arabinitol (D-arabinitol, L-arabinitol, and D,L arabinitol);dulcitol (a.k.a galactitol); erythritol; galaxitol; glucitol(D-glucitol, L-glucitol, and D,L glucitol); glycerol; iditol (D-iditoland L-iditol); inositol; isomalt; lactitol; maltitol; mannitol(D-mannitol, L-mannitol, and D,L mannitol); perseitol; ribitol;rhamnitol; threitol (D-threitol, L-threitol, and D,L threitol); andxylitol. These sugar alcohols may be provided in any combination as partof, or along with, the feed composition. Preferably, however, only oneof these sugar alcohols is included in, or along with, any particularbatch of the feed composition that is orally fed to the ruminants.

In addition to, or along with, the sugar alcohol, the feed compositionthat is orally fed to the ruminant may include any other conventionalruminant feed component that is capable of being blended with the sugaralcohol as part of the feed composition or that is capable of beingcombined with the feed composition of the present invention, so long asthe feed components do not hinder abomasal or intestinal function andare not otherwise harmful to the ruminant. Some non-exhaustive examplesof such feed components that may be included as part of the feedcomposition of the present invention include water, beans, grains, bean-or grain-based oils, bean- or grain-based meals, bean- or grain-basedhaylage or silage, bean- or grain-based syrups, fatty acids,commercially available formula feeds, and mixtures thereof. Someexamples of suitable formula feeds include Peak Plus® 37 formula feed,Fresh Tran Plus® formula feed, and Condition Plus® formula feed that areeach available from Land O'Lakes, Inc. of Arden Hills, Minn., and QLF®4-19 formula feed that is available from Quality Liquid Feeds, Inc. ofDodgeville, Wis.

One preferred formulation of the feed composition includes about 10 toabout 15 weight percent alfalfa haylage, about 10 to about 15 weightpercent alfalfa hay, about 25 to about 30 weight percent corn silage,about 15 to about 20 weight percent cracked corn, about 5 to about 10weight percent Peak Plus® 37 formula feed, about 8 to about 13 weightpercent Fresh Tran Plus®, about 3 to about 6 weight percent ConditionPlus®, and about 3 to about 6 weight percent QLF® 4-19 formula feed,based upon the dry matter weight of the feed composition. This preferredform of the feed composition permits at least as much as about 50 weightpercent of the sorbitol, based upon the total amount of sorbitol orallyfed to the ruminant, to pass through the rumen of the ruminant and intothe abomasum of the ruminant within about six to about eight hours afterthe sorbitol enters the rumen. In one particularly preferredformulation, the feed composition includes about 13 weight percentalfalfa haylage, about 13 weight percent alfalfa hay, about 26 weightpercent corn silage, about 19 weight percent cracked corn, about 8weight percent Peak Plus® 37 feed formula, about 10.4 weight percentFresh Tran Plus® formula feed, about 4.5 weight percent Condition Plus®feed formula, and about 4.7 weight percent QLF® 4-19 formula feed, basedupon the dry matter weight of the feed composition.

When the feed composition is based upon a combination of (1) forage and(2) beans, grains, bean-derivatives, and/or grain derivatives, it isbelieved that the feed composition will be adequate to permit at leastas much as about 50 weight percent of the sugar alcohol, based upon thetotal amount of sugar alcohol orally fed to the ruminant, to passthrough the rumen of the ruminant and into the abomasum of the ruminantwithin about six to about eight hours after the sugar alcohol enters therumen, when using sorbitol as the sugar alcohol, so long as the feedcomposition includes up to about 50 weight percent of forage and about50 weight percent or more of beans, grains, bean derivatives, grainderivatives and any combination of these, based upon the total drymatter weight of the feed composition. Some non-exhaustive examples ofsuitable forages are alfalfa hay and alfalfa haylage. Somenon-exhaustive examples of suitable beans and grains include corn,soybeans, and milo. Some non-exhaustive examples of suitable bean andgrain derivatives include silage, syrup, meal, and oils derived frombeans and/or grain. The formulation of the feed composition ispreferably adequate to permit at least as much as about 50 weightpercent of the sugar alcohol, based upon the total amount of sugaralcohol orally fed to the ruminant, to pass through the rumen of theruminant and into the abomasum of the ruminant within about six to abouteight hours after the sugar alcohol enters the rumen, when usingsorbitol as the sugar alcohol and, more preferably, when using any ofthe listed sugar alcohols as the sugar alcohol.

The preferred sorbitol form of the sugar alcohol may generally be orallyfed to the ruminants at the rate of about 100 grams, or less, ofsorbitol per ruminant per day, so long as some sorbitol is fed to theruminant daily. In one preferred form, sorbitol is fed to the ruminantsat the rate of about 50 grams of sorbitol to about 100 grams of sorbitolper ruminant per day. In one particularly preferred embodiment, sorbitolis fed to the ruminants at the rate of about 50 grams of sorbitol perruminant per day.

The sugar alcohol may be included as part of the feed compositionAlternatively, the sugar alcohol may be added to the feed composition asa post-treatment, after the feed composition has been placed in the feedtrough of the ruminants that are being fed in accordance with thepresent invention. After top dressing the sugar alcohol onto the feedcomposition, it has been found beneficial to periodically stir the feedcomposition in front of the ruminants being fed. This stirring tends todraw the attention of the ruminants to the feed composition and therebytends to cause the ruminants to eat some additional amount of the feedcomposition that includes or has been top dressed with sugar alcohol inaccordance with the present invention.

Various analytical techniques are employed herein. An explanation ofthese techniques follows. All values presented in this document for aparticular parameter, such as weight percent true protein, weightpercent fat, weight percent lactose, weight percent non-proteinnitrogen, and weight percent total solids, are based on the “as is”sample and are therefore on a “wet basis”, unless otherwise specifiedherein.

Property Determination and Characterization Techniques

To determine the dry matter weight (or dry matter basis or dry basis) ofa particular sample, the sample is first weighed. The weighed sample isthen dried in an oven at a temperature that is adequate to drive offmoisture from the sample without degrading the sample components, suchas a temperature ranging from about 100° C. to about 110° C. The ovendrying is continued until the weight of the dried sample remainsconstant, despite additional oven drying.

To determine the weight percent total solids, wet basis, in a sample,the actual weight of total solids is determined by analyzing the samplein accordance with Method #925.23 (33.2.09) of Official Methods ofAnalysis, Association of Official Analytical Chemists (AOAC) (16th Ed.,1995). The weight percent total solids, wet basis, is then calculated bydividing the actual weight of total solids by the actual weight of thesample.

To determine the percent of total protein, wet basis, in a sample, theactual weight of total protein is determined in accordance with Method#991.20 (33.2.11) of Official Methods of Analysis, Association ofOfficial Analytical Chemists (AOAC) (16th Ed., 1995). The valuedetermined by the above method yields “total Kjeldahl nitrogen,” whichis equivalent to “total protein” since the above method incorporates afactor that accounts for the average amount of nitrogen in protein.Since any and all total Kjeldahl nitrogen determinations presentedherein are based on the above method, the terms “total Kjeldahlnitrogen” and “total protein” are used interchangeably herein.Furthermore, those skilled in the art will recognize that the term“total Kjeldahl nitrogen” is generally used in the art to mean “totalprotein” with the understanding that the factor has been applied. Theweight percent total protein, wet basis, is calculated by dividing theactual weight of total protein by the actual weight of the sample.

The weight percent of true protein, wet basis, for a particular sampleis calculated after first determining the wet basis weight percent oftotal Kjeldahl nitrogen and the wet basis weight percent of non-proteinnitrogen in the sample. The wet basis weight percent of total Kjeldahlnitrogen in the sample is determined using the method referenced above.The wet basis weight percent of non-protein nitrogen (NPN) in the sampleis determined in accordance with Method #991.21 (33.2.12) of OfficialMethods of Analysis, Association of Official Analytical Chemists (AOAC)(16th Ed., 1995). The weight percent of true protein, wet basis, in thesample is then determined by subtracting the wet basis weight percent ofnon-protein nitrogen in the sample from the wet basis weight percent oftotal Kjeldahl nitrogen in the sample.

To determine the weight percent lactose, wet basis, in a liquid sample,the weight of the liquid sample is first determined. The actual weightof lactose in the liquid sample may then be determined using analysiskit number 176-303, that is available from Boehringer-Mannheim ofIndianapolis, Ind. in accordance with the procedural instructionsincluded with analysis kit number 176-303. The weight percent lactose,wet basis, in the liquid sample is then calculated by dividing theactual weight of lactose in the liquid sample by the actual weight ofthe liquid sample.

To determine the weight percent fat, wet basis, in a sample, the actualweight of fat in the sample is determined in accordance with Method#974.09 (33.7.18) of Official Methods of Analysis, Association ofOfficial Analytical Chemists (AOAC) (16th Ed., 1995). The weight percentfat, wet basis, is then calculated by dividing the actual weight of fatin the sample by the actual weight of the sample.

The present invention is more particularly described in the followingexamples which are intended as illustrations only since numerousmodifications and variations within the scope of the present inventionwill be apparent to those skilled in the art.

EXAMPLES Example 1

This example demonstrates the effect of orally feeding lactating cowssorbitol at the rate of about 100 grams of sorbitol per day per cow. Inthis example, twenty Holstein cows averaging about thirty days in milkeach, and thus in early lactation, were arranged in a randomizedcomplete block design. Ten of the twenty cows were orally fed a controlration, and the other ten cows were orally fed a test ration thatconsisted of the control ration plus about 100 grams of sorbitol per dayper cow.

The cows were blocked by parity milk production, based upon the level ofmilk production by individual cows, after being in milk for fifteen totwenty days. After being blocked by parity milk production, the cowswere randomly allotted to the control ration feeding or to the testration feeding. The components of the control ration used in thisexample are shown in Table 1:

TABLE 1 COMPONENTS WEIGHT PERCENT (DRY BASIS) alfalfa haylage 13.0alfalfa hay 13.0 corn silage 26.0 corn, cracked 18.8 Peak Plus ® 37formula feed 8.0 Fresh Tran Plus ® formula feed 10.4 Condition Plus ®formula feed 4.5 QLF ® 4-19 formula feed 4.7 other minor ingredients 1.6The ingredient list for the control ration having the composition ofTable 1 is broken down in Table 2 below:

TABLE 2 WEIGHT PERCENT COMPONENT (DRY BASIS) alfalfa haylage 13.0alfalfa hay 13.0 corn silage 26.0 corn, cracked 18.8 QLF ® 4-19 formulafeed 4.7 whole cotton seed 4.2* 48 wt. % protein soybean meal 7.8* wheatmidds 1.9* soy hulls 1.1* SoyPass ™ protein-modified soybean meal 2.6*dried distiller's grain with solubles 1.9* molasses 0.5* Megalac ® fatbase 0.9* other minor ingredients 3.7** *derived from Peak Plus ® 37formula feed, Fresh Tran Plus ® formula feed, and/or Condition Plus ®formula feed **derived from Peak Plus ® 37 formula feed, Fresh TranPlus ® formula feed, and/or Condition Plus ® formula feed and from otherminor ingredients listed in Table 1Table 3 includes a summary of particular nutrients present in thecontrol ration:

TABLE 3 NUTRIENT WEIGHT PERCENT (DRY BASIS) crude protein 18.1 aciddetergent soluble fiber (ADF) 18.9 neutral detergent soluble fiber (NDF)27.5 fat 6.0 calcium 1.05 phosphorous 0.52

The control ration was placed in the feeding troughs of the cattle oncedaily in the morning. When the test ration was to be provided to thetest cattle, sorbitol was top dressed and lightly mixed into the controlration in the feeding trough of each cow being supplied with the testration dosage of about 100 grams of sorbitol per cow per day, about onehour after the control ration was placed in the feeding trough. Then,the control ration and the test ration were lightly mixed in front ofthe cows six times per day to encourage additional feed ingestion by thecattle.

Leftover rations from the previous day's feeding were collected andweighed from each feeding trough prior to feeding the test cattle thenext day. The cows received a sufficient amount of the control ration toensure that at least about ten weight percent, based upon the amount ofcontrol ration provided at the beginning of each day, remained per dayfor each test cow. The amount of sorbitol that was top dressed in thecontrol ration to form the test ration was adjusted upward to accountfor the excess of control ration provided to ensure that the cowsingested the test ration dosage of about 100 grams of sorbitol per cowper day. Feed refusals were measured daily, and water was supplied adlibitum. Each test cow received routine care and management consistentwith appropriate recommendations in the Guide for the Care and Use ofAgricultural Animals in Agricultural Research and Teaching (1st edition,March 1983).

Each cow was milked three times daily and the weight of produced milkwas recorded at each milking. The milk was sampled once per day (⅓ ofthe sample volume from each milking) and was analyzed for protein, fat,lactose, and total solids, in accordance with the property determinationand characterization techniques presented above.

The milk production and milk component data was analyzed using thegeneral linear model (GLM) statistical procedure of SAS® statisticalanalysis software for a randomized, complete block design that includedboth the particular feed regimen and the week of the test period in themodel statement. The SAS® statistical analysis software is availablefrom SAS Institute, Inc. of Cary, N.C. Additionally, all data wasanalyzed to determine the mean of the data for each variable underconsideration over the entire experimental period.

Statistical analysis was completed for the dry matter intake, milkproduction amount, and milk composition parameters. The dry matterintake and the milk production rate data was covariately adjusted usingpre-trial milk weights. Covariate adjustment entails the creation of astatistical adjustment factor, considering the rate of milk productionof each individual cow prior to any experimental feeding, that yields astandard base line for dry matter intake and milk production rate forthe test cattle, and thereby statistically accounts for any variationsin dry matter intake and milk production rate between different cattleprior to feeding in accordance with this example.

Additionally, the PDiff function of the GLM statistical procedure wasused to characterize the mean value by providing a Probability value (P)for comparing between the mean values of the group fed the controlration and the mean values of the group fed the test ration, forparticular test parameters or variables. The probability value, P, is ameasure of the statistical probability that the differing parametervalues between the cattle fed the control ration control cattle and thecattle fed the test ration may be explained by the difference betweennot feeding sorbitol versus feeding sorbitol.

A P value of 0.10 means that 10 times out of 100 the results can beexplained by factors other than the feeding of sorbitol versus the lackof sorbitol feeding. Likewise, a P value of 0.77 means that 77 times outof 100, the difference in value between the control group and thesorbitol-fed group may be explained by factors other than the feeding ofsorbitol versus the lack of sorbitol feeding. For purposes of comparingdata in this document, P values of 0.10, or lower, are considered to bestatistically significant. Thus, where a P value of 0.10 or less isreturned for particular results, it is assumed that the differingresults are fully explained by the test regimen, i.e.: the feeding ofsorbitol versus the lack of sorbitol feeding.

The mean of the dry matter intake and of the milk production for thecattle fed the control ration and for the group fed the test ration overthe entire twenty-eight day test period are provided in Table 4.

TABLE 4 PRODUCTION CONTROL TEST PROBABILITY PARAMETER RATION* RATION**VALUE (P) Dry Matter Intake 47.2 45.6 0.54 (pounds/day/cow) MilkProduction 88.9 93.5 0.02 (pounds/day/cow) *The control ration had thecomposition shown in Table 1. **about 100 grams of sorbitol per day percow mixed with control ration.Additionally, the dry matter intake and the milk production rate overthe four week test period for the cattle fed the control ration and forthe cattle fed the test ration are graphically presented in FIGS. 1 and2, respectively. The dry matter intake and the milk production rate datapoints included in FIGS. 1 and 2 are mean values for the cattle fed thecontrol ration and for the cattle fed the test ration, respectively, atthe end of each week of the four week test period.

The dry matter intake data presented in FIG. 1 illustrates that thecattle fed the control ration had a higher daily dry matter intake ratethan the cattle fed the test ration. However, as exemplified by theprobability value P of 0.54 for the dry matter intake data that ispresented in Table 4 above, this difference in dry matter intake betweenthe cattle fed the control ration and the cattle fed the test ration isstatistically insignificant, and is thought to be linked most likely tosuppressed dry matter intake of one or two of the test cows that isunrelated to the sorbitol feeding regimen.

The milk production data that is presented in FIG. 2 demonstrates thatfor each weekly data point, there was a significant increase in dailymilk production for the test cows that were fed sorbitol versus thecontrol cows that were not fed sorbitol. This difference in milkproduction rates that is exhibited in FIG. 2 is, as exemplified by theprobability value P of only 0.02 that is presented in Table 4, directlycaused by the sorbitol feeding of the test cows. The probability value Pof 0.02 means that there is 98% confidence that the sorbitol feedingregimen in the test cows caused the significant increase in the milkproduction rate of the test cows, versus the milk production rate of thecontrol cows. The data of Table 4 clearly shows that there was a meanincrease of about 4.6 pounds per day per cow of milk production for thetest cows, versus the control cows, over the four week test period.

Example 2

This example demonstrates the differential effect of orally feedinglactating cows a control ration, a first test ration formed of thecontrol ration and sorbitol that was orally fed to the cattle at therate of about 50 grams of sorbitol per day per cow, and a second testration-formed of the control ration and sorbitol that was orally fed tothe cattle at the rate of about 100 grams of sorbitol per day per cow.In this example, fifteen Holstein cows (nine multiparous and sixprimiparous) averaging about sixty-five days in milk each, and thus inearly lactation, were arranged in a 3×3 Latin square design, also knownas the switch back design, that was replicated five times. Each cow wasrandomly allotted to the control ration treatment, to the first testration treatment, or to the second test ration treatment.

In the 3×3 Latin square design, each cow is cycled through eachtreatment, namely, the control ration treatment, the first test rationtreatment, and the second test ration treatment. This permits each cowto act as a control for standardizing the testing differences observedbetween each treatment for each cow. Sufficient time between feedingtreatments (between the control ration treatment, the first ration testtreatment, and the second test ration treatment) was allowed to permitnormalization of each cow before being switched to a differenttreatment.

The cows were blocked by parity milk production, based upon the level ofmilk production by individual cows, after being in milk for forty-fivedays. After being blocked by parity milk production, the cows wererandomly allotted to the control ration feeding, the first test rationfeeding, or the second test ration feeding. The components of thecontrol ration used in this example are shown in Table 5:

TABLE 5 COMPONENTS WEIGHT PERCENT (DRY BASIS) alfalfa haylage 13.0alfalfa hay 13.0 corn silage 26.0 corn, cracked 18.8 Peak Plus ® 37formula feed 8.0 Fresh Tran Plus ® formula feed 10.4 Condition Plus ®formula feed 4.5 QLF ® 4-19 formula feed 4.7 other minor ingredients 1.6The ingredient list for the control ration having the composition ofTable 5 is broken down in Table 6 below:

TABLE 6 WEIGHT PERCENT INGREDIENT (DRY BASIS) alfalfa haylage 13.0alfalfa hay 13.0 corn silage 26.0 corn, cracked 18.8 QLF ® 4-19 formulafeed 4.7 whole cotton seed 4.2* 48 wt. % protein soybean meal 7.8* wheatmidds 1.9* soy hulls 1.1* SoyPass ™ protein-modified soybean meal 2.6*dried distiller's grain with solubles 1.9* molasses 0.5* Megalac ® fatbase 0.9* other minor ingredients 3.7** *derived from Peak Plus ® 37formula feed, Fresh Tran Plus ® formula feed, and/or Condition Plus ®formula feed **derived from Peak Plus ® 37 formula feed, Fresh TranPlus ® formula feed, and/or Condition Plus ® formula feed and from otherminor ingredients listed in Table 5Table 7 includes a summary of particular nutrients present in thecontrol ration:

TABLE 7 NUTRIENT WEIGHT PERCENT (DRY BASIS) crude protein 18.1 aciddetergent soluble fiber (ADF) 18.9 neutral detergent soluble fiber (NDF)27.5 fat 6.0 calcium 1.05 phosphorous 0.52

The control ration was placed in the feeding troughs of the cattle oncedaily in the morning. When the first test ration was to be provided tothe test cattle, sorbitol was top dressed and lightly mixed into thecontrol ration in the feeding trough of each cow being supplied with thefirst test ration dosage of about 50 grams of sorbitol per cow per day,about one hour after the control ration was placed in the feedingtrough. When the second test ration was to be provided to the testcattle, sorbitol was top dressed and lightly mixed into the controlration in the feeding trough of each cow being supplied with the secondtest ration dosage of about 100 grams of sorbitol per cow per day, aboutone hour after the control ration was placed in the feeding trough.Then, the control ration, the first test ration, and the second testration were lightly mixed in front of the cows six times per day toencourage additional feed ingestion by the cattle.

Leftover rations from the previous day's feeding were collected andweighed from each feeding trough prior to feeding the test cattle thenext day. The cows received a sufficient amount of the control ration toensure that at least about ten weight percent, based upon the amount ofcontrol ration provided at the beginning of each day, remained per dayfor each test cow. The amount of sorbitol that was top dressed in thecontrol ration to form the first test ration was adjusted upward toaccount for the excess of control ration provided to ensure that thecows ingested the first test ration dosage of about 50 grams of sorbitolper cow per day. Likewise, the amount of sorbitol that was top dressedin the control ration to form the second test ration was adjusted upwardto account for the excess of control ration provided to ensure that thecows ingested the second test ration dosage of about 100 grams ofsorbitol per cow per day. Feed refusals were measured daily, and waterwas supplied ad libitum. Each test cow received routine care andmanagement consistent with appropriate recommendations in the Guide forthe Care and Use of Agricultural Animals in Agricultural Research andTeaching (1st edition, March 1988).

Each cow was milked three times daily and the weight of produced milkwas recorded at each milking. The milk was sampled once per day (⅓ ofthe sample volume from each milking) and was analyzed for protein, fat,lactose, and total solids, in accordance with the property determinationand characterization techniques presented above.

The milk production and milk component data was analyzed using thegeneral linear model (GLM) statistical procedure of SAS® statisticalanalysis software for a 3×3 Latin square design that included both theparticular feed regimen and the week of the test period in the modelstatement. The SAS® statistical analysis software is available from SASinstitute, Inc. of Cary, N.C. Data analysis based upon the standard GLMprocedures using the SAS® statistical analysis system incorporated thedegrees of freedom presented in Table 8 below:

TABLE 8 SOURCE DEGREES OF FREEDOM Block 4 Animal (block) 12 Period(block) 12 Treatment 2 Error 28 ERROR 44Individual squares of the 3×3 Latin square design were analyzed usingthe degrees of freedom presented in Table 9 below:

TABLE 9 SOURCE DEGREES OF FREEDOM Animal (block) 2 Period (block) 2Treatment 2 Error 20 ERROR 26Additionally, all data was analyzed to determine the mean of the datafor each variable under consideration over the final two weeks of theexperimental periods for the control ration treatment, for the firsttest ration treatment, and for the second test ration treatment. Datawas not collected during the first two weeks of the four weekexperimental period to allow the cattle an acclimation, or adjustment,period for the different testing regimens.

Statistical analysis was completed for the dry matter intake, milkproduction amount, and milk composition parameters. The dry matterintake and the milk production rate data was covariately adjusted usingpre-trial milk weights at 45 days in milk. Additionally, the PDifffunction of the GLM statistical procedure was used to characterize themean value by providing a Probability value (P) for comparing betweenthe mean values of the group fed the control ration, the group fed thefirst test ration, and the group fed the second test ration, forparticular test parameters or variables.

Production parameters for all cows (both primiparous and multiparous)are presented in Table 10 below.

TABLE 10 Production Value Means Over Last 14 Days of 28 Day Test Period(All Cows) SECOND STANDARD PRODUCTION CONTROL FIRST TEST TEST ERROR OFPROBABILITY PARAMETER RATION* RATION** RATION*** THE MEAN VALUE (P) DryMatter Intake 53.7^(a) 55.9^(b) 54.8^(ab) 0.75 0.05 (pounds/day/cow)Milk Production 92.9^(a) 97.5^(b) 95.6^(ab) 1.55 0.05 (pounds/day/cow)Milk Protein 2.63 2.77 2.71 0.06 >0.10 (pounds/day/cow) Lactose 4.46^(a)4.71^(b) 4.62^(ab) 0.08 0.04 (pounds/day/cow) Total Solids 10.82^(a)11.39^(b) 11.12^(ab) 0.21 0.07 (pounds/day/cow) *The control ration hadthe composition shown in Table 5. **about 50 grams of sorbitol per dayper cow mixed with control ration. ***about 100 grams of sorbitol perday per cow mixed with control ration. ^(ab)Means within the same rowwith different superscripts differ at the probability value (P) that isindicated.The data of Table 10 illustrates that there was an increase in both thedry matter intake rate and the milk production rate for cows receivingthe first test ration (about 50 grams of sorbitol per day per cow) andfor cows receiving the second test ration (about 100 grams of sorbitolper cow per day) versus the cows fed the control ration. Both the drymatter intake rate increase and the milk production rate increase areattributable to the sorbitol feeding regimen, since the probabilityvalue, P, is only 0.05 for both the dry matter intake data and for themilk production data. One surprising observation is that the lowersorbitol administration rate of the first test ration treatment, ascompared to the higher sorbitol administration rate of the second testration treatment, caused both the dry matter intake rate and the milkproduction rate to increase by a numerically larger amount over the drymatter intake rate and the milk production rate for cattle fed only thecontrol ration.

It is additionally observed that the cows receiving the first testration treatment of about 50 grams of sorbitol per day improved theirmilk production rate by 4.6 pounds per day per cow, versus cows fed onlythe control ration, which is the same milk production increase of thecows fed about 100 grams of sorbitol in the testing of Example 1. On theother hand, the cows receiving the second test ration treatment of about100 grams of sorbitol per day in Example 2 improved their milkproduction rate by only 2.7 pounds per day per cow, versus cows fed onlythe control ration, which is less than the milk production increase of4.6 pounds per day per cow for the cows fed about 100 grams of sorbitolin the testing of Example 1.

The difference in results between Examples 1 and 2, for the same feedingrate of about 100 grams of sorbitol per day, is possibly related to atransitional feeding period that was used in Example 2, but not inExample 1. Specifically, the cows used in Example 2 were fed the testration for a two week transitional period before any samples werecollected. On the other hand, in the testing of Example 1, the cows werefed sorbitol for a four week period and the test data in Example 1 isbased upon samples collected over each week of the four week test periodwith no transition period prior to sampling. The difference in resultsbetween Examples 1 and 2, for the same feeding rate of about 100 gramsof sorbitol per day, may also be related to “animal to animal”experimental variations that are sometimes encountered during dairycattle trials. Animal to animal variations occur, on average, in aboutfive percent of the dairy cattle herd during trials and testing. Suchanimal to animal variations are believed to be caused by a variety offactors that are not directly controllable, such as reproductive systemcycles, viruses and other illnesses, immune system variations, andrandom types of shock to the animal.

The important observation from Table 10 is that both the 50 gram per daysorbitol feeding regimen and the 100 gram per day sorbitol feedingregimen produced increases in milk production, versus the milkproduction of cows fed only the control ration. However, on the basis ofeconomics, the 50 gram per day sorbitol feeding regimen produced abetter result than the 100 gram per day sorbitol feeding regimen, sincethe 50 gram per day sorbitol feeding regimen actually increased milkproduction over the control ration feeding regimen by a numericallyhigher amount than the 100 gram per day sorbitol feeding regimen.

One final observation with respect to the data of Table 10 is that boththe cows fed about 50 grams of sorbitol per day and the cows fed about100 grams of sorbitol per day showed statistically significant (P≦0.10)increases in the pounds of lactose per day per cow in the produced milkand in the pounds of total solids per day per cow in the produced milk.However, the differences in the production of these two milk componentsare believed to be primarily caused by the higher milk production rate,and not by a statistically significant higher percentage of lactose ortotal solids in the produced milk.

Production parameters for the primiparous cows used in Example 2 arepresented in Table 11 below:

TABLE 11 Production Value Means Over Last 14 Days of 28 Day Test Period(Primiparous Cows Only) FIRST SECOND STANDARD PRODUCTION CONTROL TESTTEST ERROR OF PROBABILITY PARAMETER RATION* RATION** RATION*** THE MEANVALUE (P) Dry Matter Intake 44.0 44.7 43.5 0.82 >0.10 (pounds/day/cow)Milk Production 79.5 81.8 81.2 1.18 >0.10 (pounds/day/cow) Milk Protein2.18 2.20 2.16 0.05 >0.10 (pounds/day/cow) Lactose 3.85 3.99 3.950.06 >0.10 (pounds/day/cow) Total Solids 9.23 9.63 9.62 0.21 >0.10(sounds/day/cow) *The control ration had the composition shown in Table5. **about 50 grams of sorbitol per day per cow mixed with controlration. ***about 100 grams of sorbitol per day per cow mixed withcontrol ration.The changes in Table 11 of the values for particular productionparameters for the primiparous cows are not statistically different asbetween the first test ration treatment and the control treatment or asbetween the second test ration treatment and the control treatment,since P is greater than 0.10 for each of the production parametersmonitored. This demonstrates that the primiparous cows did notcontribute, statistically speaking, to the increases in milk productionrate, dry matter intake rate, or milk component production rate shown inTable 10 which reflects overall results for all cows, both primiparousand multiparous. This is not unexpected since primiparous cows typicallyshow more cow to cow variation of milk production and milk componentproduction parameters than do multiparous cows.

The production parameters for the multiparous cows that were tested inExample 2 are presented in Table 12:

TABLE 12 Production Value Means Over Last 14 days of 28 Day Test Period(Multiparous Cows Only) FIRST SECOND STANDARD PRODUCTION CONTROL TESTTEST ERROR OF PROBABILITY PARAMETER RATION* RATION** RATION*** THE MEANVALUE (P) Dry Matter Intake 60.2^(a) 63.3^(b) 62.3^(ab) 1.16 0.09(pounds/day/cow) Milk Production 101.9^(a) 108.0^(b) 105.3^(ab) 2.150.07 (pounds/day/cow) Milk Protein 2.93^(a) 3.15^(b) 3.07^(ab) 0.08 0.08(pounds/day/cow) Lactose 4.86^(a) 5.19^(b) 5.07^(ab) 0.12 0.07(pounds/day/cow) Total Solids 11.87 12.57 12.13 0.29 >0.10(pounds/day/cow) *The control ration had the composition shown in Table2. **about 50 grams of sorbitol per day per cow mixed with controlration. ***about 100 grams of sorbitol per day per cow mixed withcontrol ration. ^(ab)Means within the same row with differentsuperscripts differ at the probability value (P) that is indicatedThe data presented in Table 12 for the multiparous cows continues todemonstrate many of the production parameter changes observed in the“all cow” testing results of Table 10. For example, the dry matterintake rate and the milk production rate increased, as compared to thedry matter intake rate and milk production rate for cattle fed thecontrol ration, for both the cows fed about 50 grams of sorbitol per dayand for the cows fed about 100 grams of sorbitol per day. However,similar to the observation noted above with respect to the “all cow”data of Table 10, the multiparous cows fed about 50 grams of sorbitolper day showed larger numerical increases in both the dry matter intakeand milk production rates over the cattle fed the control ration, ascompared to the multiparous cows fed about 100 grams of sorbitol perday.

Additionally, for the multiparous cows, both the milk protein productionrate and the lactose production rate in the produced milk increased forboth the 50 gram per day sorbitol treatment and the 100 gram per day percow sorbitol treatment versus the control ration treatment. Again, theproduction rates of milk protein and lactose increased by a numericallylarger amount for the cows fed about 50 grams of sorbitol per day,versus those fed at the higher rate of about 100 grams of sorbitol perday. Again, the increases in milk component production rates for thesorbitol treatments, versus the control treatment, are believed to becaused by the higher milk production rates, rather than by higherpercentages of components in the produced milk.

Finally, production parameters for individual blocks of cows fed thecontrol ration, the first test ration, and the second test ration arepresented in Table 13 that follows.

TABLE 13 Production Value Means For Individual Blocks Over The Last 14Days Of The 28 Day Test Period FIRST SECOND STANDARD PRODUCTION CONTROLTEST TEST ERROR OF PROBABILITY PARAMETER RATION* RATION** RATION*** THEMEAN VALUE (P) Dry Matter Intake (pounds/day/cow) Block 1 45.0 44.2 44.40.99 >0.10 Block 2 42.9^(a) 45.3^(b) 42.6^(ab) 1.35 0.04 Block 354.4^(a) 60.7^(b) 60.1^(ab) 1.55 0.10 Block 4 61.0 62.6 61.2 0.50 >0.10Block 5 65.1 66.6 65.8 1.76 >0.10 Milk Production (pounds/day/cow) Block1 83.7 85.5 85.2 2.73 >0.10 Block 2 75.3^(a) 78.0^(b) 77.1^(ab) 0.670.10 Block 3 89.0 98.8 99.0 4.70 0.28 Block 4 97.6^(a) 102.9^(b)95.9^(ab) 1.07 0.07 Block 5 119.1^(a) 122.4^(b) 121.0^(ab) 0.76 0.10Milk Protein (pounds/day/cow) Block 1 2.23 2.22 2.19 0.10 >0.10 Block 22.13 2.18 2.12 0.06 >0.10 Block 3 2.62 2.89 2.85 0.16 >0.10 Block 42.83^(a) 3.18^(b) 3.01^(ab) 0.08 0.08 Block 5 3.35 3.39 3.36 0.03 >0.10Lactose (pounds/day/cow) Block 1 3.99 4.10 4.07 0.04 >0.10 Block 23.72^(a) 3.89^(b) 3.82^(ab) 0.04 0.07 Block 3 4.32 4.84 4.86 0.24 >0.10Block 4 4.56^(a) 4.88^(b) 4.57^(ab) 0.06 0.06 Block 5 5.70^(a) 5.86^(b)5.78^(ab) 0.03 0.05 Total Solids (pounds/day/cow) Block 1 9.51 9.77 9.940.41 >0.10 Block 2 8.95 9.48 9.29 0.15 >0.10 Block 3 10.70 11.53 11.620.64 >0.10 Block 4 11.46^(a) 12.35^(b) 11.01^(ab) 0.30 0.09 Block 513.46 13.83 13.78 0.28 >0.10 *The control ration had the compositionshown in Table 5. **about 50 grams of sorbitol per day per cow mixedwith control ration. ***about 100 grams of sorbitol per day per cowmixed with control ration. ^(ab)Means within the same row with differentsuperscripts differ at the probability value (P) that is indicatedConsistent with the increased dry matter intake rate data and theincreased milk production rate data of Table 10, most blocks presentedin Table 13 show statistically significant (P≦0.10) increases in boththe dry matter intake rate and the milk production rate. Similarcomments apply with respect to the lactose production rate, though theincreases in lactose production rate are believed primarily attributableto the increase in milk production rate for the cows given the firsttest ration and the second test ration.

Although the present invention has been described with reference topreferred embodiments, workers skilled in the art will recognize thatchanges may be made in form and detail without departing from the spiritand scope of the invention.

The invention claimed is:
 1. A method of increasing milk production in a lactating ruminant without statistically increasing dry matter intake, the method comprising: feeding the lactating ruminant a feed ration, the feed ration comprising sugar alcohol, forage and at least one non-forage feed component, the sugar alcohol comprising one or more of adonitol, allitol, altritol, arabinitol, dulcitol, erythritol, galaxitol, glucitol, iditol, inositol, isomalt, lactitol, maltitol, mannitol, perseitol, ribitol, rhamnitol, sorbitol, threitol or xylitol, and the at least one non-forage feed component comprising one or more of a grain, a bean, a grain product or a bean product; and observing the lactating ruminant fed the feed ration exhibits increased milk production without statistically increasing dry matter intake.
 2. The method of claim 1, wherein the sugar alcohol comprises at least sorbitol.
 3. The method of claim 1, wherein the forage comprises one or more of haylage, hay or silage.
 4. The method of claim 1, wherein the feed ration is formulated to include at least about 19 percent fiber, based upon the total dry matter weight of the feed ration.
 5. The method of claim 1, wherein the feed ration is formulated to include about 28 percent neutral detergent fiber (NDF), based upon the total dry matter weight of the feed ration.
 6. The method of claim 1, wherein the sugar alcohol is combined with one or more of the non-forage feed components.
 7. The method of claim 6, wherein at least a portion of the non-forage feed components are contained in a formula feed.
 8. The method of claim 1, wherein the sugar alcohol is provided in the feed ration is an aqueous mixture of water and the sugar alcohol.
 9. The method of claim 1, wherein the sugar alcohol comprises one or more of crystalline sugar alcohol or sugar alcohol syrup.
 10. A method of increasing milk production in a lactating ruminant without statistically increasing dry matter intake, the method comprising: formulating a feed ration for the lactating ruminant, the feed ration comprising sugar alcohol, forage and at least one non-forage feed component, the sugar alcohol comprising one or more of adonitol, allitol, altritol, arabinitol, dulcitol, erythritol, galaxitol, glucitol, iditol, inositol, isomalt, lactitol, maltitol, mannitol, perseitol, ribitol, rhamnitol, sorbitol, threitol or xylitol, and the at least one non-forage feed component comprising one or more of a grain, a bean, a grain product or a bean product; and determining the lactating ruminant ingesting the formulated feed ration exhibits increased milk production without statistically increasing dry matter intake.
 11. The method of claim 10, wherein the sugar alcohol comprises at least sorbitol.
 12. The method of claim 10, wherein the forage comprises one or more of haylage, hay or silage.
 13. The method of claim 10, wherein the feed ration is formulated to include at least about 19 percent fiber, based upon the total dry matter weight of the feed ration.
 14. The method of claim 10, wherein the feed ration is formulated to include about 28 percent neutral detergent fiber, based upon the total dry matter weight of the feed ration.
 15. The method of claim 10, wherein the sugar alcohol is combined with one or more of the non-forage feed components.
 16. The method of claim 15, wherein at least a portion of the non-forage feed components are contained in a formula feed.
 17. The method of claim 10, wherein the sugar alcohol in the feed ration is an aqueous mixture of water and the sugar alcohol.
 18. The method of claim 10, wherein the sugar alcohol comprises one or more of crystalline sugar alcohol or sugar alcohol syrup. 